147 Mass. 136 | Mass. | 1888
The plaintiff entered the waiting-room of the defendant’s station in Roxbury, intending to take the last evening train for Boston, for which one of two friends who accompanied him had informed him he was in time. In fact, it had been gone some fifteen minutes. With-his friends, the plaintiff remained “ three minutes, or something like that,” as he stated on cross-examination, or “ about two minutes,” as other witnesses stated, in conversation with them. The station agent was there clearing up the station, but no inquiries were made of him or any one on the subject of the train. At the end of this time, the plaintiff was informed by his friend that the last train to Boston had gone, and that he would have to take a horse car. He waited “ a minute or two,” as he states in his examination in chief, or “three or four minutes,” as he states in his cross-examination, in the defendant’s station. He further testified:
It is the contention of the plaintiff, that he was on the premises at the invitation of the defendant, and that the company was bound to see that its premises were in such condition, in all respects, that such a person, in the exercise of ordinary care, could leave them without injury, and that this extends to and embraces proper and suitable platforms, steps, and walks, as well as suitable lights. The only obligation that the defendant could have been under to the plaintiff was that which it owed to one intending to become a passenger in one of its trains, who would have a right to use the waiting-room for a reasonable time before the arrival of the expected train, or to one who sought information as to the time of departure or arrival of trains in which he was interested. Admitting that as to such persons there was a duty such as is claimed by the plaintiff owing from the defendant, by reason of an implied invitation on its part to enter the waiting-room in which the ticket office was situated, and without discussing whether, in view of the fact that there was to be no train such as he desired, and that he remained for two or three minutes without making any inquiry, the plaintiff could, up to the time that he was informed that there was no
While the defendant could, of course, jdo him no wanton injury, it had a right to conduct its business in the ordinary way, without regard to his comfort or convenience. When he arrived, he found the station-master clearing up the station, the time for closing it had arrived, and, if the plaintiff saw fit to linger, the defendant’s servants had a right to proceed to close the station and extinguish the lights. There was ample time for him to have retired while the light in the waiting-room was burning. This room was not a place where every one might resort and use it for his own business, and he could not expect that it, or the way out of it, would be kept lighted until the arrival of the horse car for which, as he states, he waited. Whether, after he knew that there was no railroad train for him, he is to be considered a trespasser or a mere licensee, is not important. He could have no higher character than the latter. There was no allurement or inducement held out for him to remain, and if he did so, it was at his own risk. In order that it may be held that, thereafter, the defendant owed any duty to him, it should be shown, not merely that it or its servant acquiesced in his remaining, and permitted it when his only possible business had been concluded, but that it was in accordance with their invitation, or with the intention and design with which the waiting-room was prepared to be used. Of this there was no evidence.
The plaintiff urges, that the inquiry should have been submitted to the jury, as a question of fact, whether he remained an unreasonable time, or for an unauthorized purpose. On the plaintiff’s own statement, three or four minutes elapsed before the light in the station was put out, and during this time he had remained for his own convenience. Upon these facts a verdict that he had remained only a reasonable time, or for an authorized purpose, would not have been justified. Nothing was shown to have been done wilfully or wantonly to the injury of the plaintiff, and upon these facts the presiding judge properly ruled that he was not entitled to recover.
Exceptions overruled.